The only new federal polling result we look to be getting this week, the regularly fortnightly rolling average from Essential Research, has Labor up a point on two-party preferred to lead 53-47, as the bad result which saw them drop two points a fortnight ago washes out of the system. On the primary vote, Labor is up two to 40% and the Coalition down one to 39%, with the Greens and Palmer United steady on 9% and 6%. We also have Essential’s monthly leader approval ratings, which have Tony Abbott down one on approval to 34% and steady on disapproval at 58%, Bill Shorten down two to 36% and down one to 39%, and Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister shifting from 40-36 to 37-34. Other questions find approval of the government’s handling of boat arrivals up two since March to 41% and disapproval down three to 35%, with 27% thinking the government too tough, 18% too soft, and 36% “taking the right approach”. Another result suggests paring back the disability support pension to be a relatively popular cost-cutting measure, with 46% supporting recent recommendations to that effect and 37% opposed.
Not good news for holidaying Hockey:
[CONSUMER confidence remains in the doldrums amid concerns over spending cuts and tax hikes outlined in the federal budget.
CONSUMER sentiment rose in July but the improvement was weaker than expected, figures from Westpac showed on Wednesday.
The Westpac/Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index increased by 1.9 per cent to 94.9, following a rise of 0.2 per cent in June.
The result dashed expectations that confidence would bounce back from its falls in the wake of the May budget, Westpac chief economist Bill Evans said.]
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/consumer-confidence-still-weak-post-budget/story-e6frfkur-1226982817480
Meher baba:
[It’s the headline “Asylum Assassin” that upsets me. On a range of levels, it’s a extremely provocative and totally reprehensible and way of portraying what happened at Westfield Parramatta.]
I was apoplectic when I read that last night.
Dis-farking-graceful.
dtt, your propositions @ 494 tend to support my position rather than the one your appear to putting forward.
Let’s be clear, there is no obvious or inevitable strategic conflict between the US and China. There is not even any real sense on which they are “rivals”. Their economies are complementary to each other. They have a common interest in maintaining open channels for trade and investment in this region. They both benefit from unimpeded financial flows and China is moving to liberalise its own financial system so it can be better integrated in the global system. This is a key part of its programs aimed at lifting its population into first-world affluence – programs that are essential to China and that would be defeated by conflict with the US.
This is not to say the region is without friction points. Clearly, they exist. But the friction is not between the US and China. It is between China and its several relatively powerless neighbours. These militarily weak states depend on the US to guarantee their territorial sovereignty. This generates risks for the US – risks that they may be drawn into token competition between China and its disparate neighbours.
Such intra-neighbourhood disputes are a menace to real US real – interests which lie in having good relations with China and in a peaceful, prosperous East Asia, no matter the occasional posturing of US politicians. Were this not so, we would see a far more bellicose response from the US in relation to the current maritime disputes than we have seen.
Consider. The US spends a fortune on defence while States in this region spend comparatively little. You can be very sure the US wants to make sure its spending is confined to protecting its own primary interests rather than interests of minor nations that cannot or will not spend anything much to defend themselves.
From the US perspective, engagement in disparate “policing” activities almost always ends badly, which is why they generally manage to keep out of localised conflicts. For example, they may have some stakes in the Syrian conflict, and be prepared to pursue their goals by proxy, but they will not become drawn into it in any material way. Likewise in Ukraine, though there are genuine issues of territorial sovereignty involved, the US is absolutely not going to commit itself to promoting Ukrainian claims in relation to Russia and will not commit itself to any military response at all, much to the chagrin of some. The conflict in Libya is another case in point. Even though the revolt there meant the Gaddafi regime would fall, the US avoided anything more than the use of aerial power, just as it had in Bosnia in the 1990’s. These really serve to illustrate the limitations of American power and the absence of any territorial ambitions on its part. They also serve to show how dangerous regional conflicts can be to US prestige and political authority.
Such reluctance on the part of the US to become drawn into local disputes – disputes which must seem very parochial, even tribal, from Washington – is completely rational. Consider the case of the Spratly Islands. These islands are disputed by Taiwan, China, The Philippines, Brunei, Viet Nam, Malaysia and China. Even if by some stupidity the US were to be drawn into conflict there, on whose behalf would they be acting? This is another dispute the US will hope just disappears.
The wariness of the US also accounts for the overt declarations by Abbott and Bishop to the effect that the US-Australia relationship is overwhelmingly “the most important” we have. It is an attempt to elicit greater US engagement in East Asia and the Pacific because they think it would be in Australia’s interests were this to occur. It would certainly mean Australia could exact more leverage from our ANZUS relations.
Rather than relying on interpretations of the US that may have been current and valid 40 years ago, your understanding of these issues would improve if you were to have regard instead for what they actually now doing.
@danielhurstbne: Greens back ALP amend’t to adjust existing scheme to move to floating price immediately. Milne says it’s a test of PUP claim to support ETS
@gabriellechan: BTW Lib senator Ian Macdonald voted against his govt 4 Xenophon review of nat electricity prices/reg. #politicslive http://t.co/HJJSGhSRiJ
The silver lining of DT headline and article is that it will lose sales as anti muslim in Western Sydney their main sales area falling as muslims increase
Hah a Keating Myth busted
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=703379156366574&set=a.567415299962961.1073741826.132583706779458&type=1&theater
Senator Singh now rightly calling out the Greens Party on their irresponsibility regarding voting history on pricing pollution.
Typhoon Neoguri heading for Southern Japan:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83980&src=fb
Japanese PM should be at home making sure things are getting setup for the typhoon!
Rex
Senator Singh should be glad the Greens are supporting Labor’s motion. Not attacking them. Wasted time not making case to persuade crossbench to vote for Labor amendment.
Libs must be smiling
Rex
Like it or not this is how Greens see it.
@GreensMPs: Once again Labor roll out the tired lie about the scheme Rudd concocted with Turnbull. http://t.co/fR7oDusWuB
“@danielhurstbne: Milne hits back: Rudd CPRS was “worse than nothing”. Tells Singh: “It’s really not very much help coming in here to repeat Labor mythology””
[Libs must be smiling]
If they are they are still smiling from the warm memory of the greens working so hard with them to destroy public support for the CPRS and that how today the libs get to reap the rewards of that green madness.
Never the Greens Party’s fault !
Short incisive paper by Stiglitz on taxation and equity:
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sites/all/files/Stiglitz_Reforming_Taxation_White_Paper_Roosevelt_Institute.pdf
rex
Not a Labor PM’s fault you mean.
Why bring up on a Labor motion supported by Greens giving the denialists a weapon to argue its politics not the issue there is no need for carbon abatement measures as CC is crap
WWP #563
But it was sooooo worth it for the Greens Party to gouge that extra 1% primary vote from Labor. 😉
You will all be pleased to know that Sen George Christensen is travelling overseas with .. wait for it .. Lord Monckton giving talks disclaiming Climate Change.
Alan Jones will be pleased.
We Want Paul
[If they are they are still smiling from the warm memory of the greens working so hard with them to destroy public support for the CPRS and that how today the libs get to reap the rewards of that green madness.]
Why do you repeat this rubbish.
Rudd didn’t negotiate with the Greens and acted all surprised when they voted no (despite them saying they would).
The Govt could have then negotiated with the Greens to find out what they would support (and possibly keep the Lib votes they gained), but no, Rudd just threw his hands in the end and gave up. What a wimp, from the moral issue of our time to ‘oh it’s too hard’.
newmatilda @newmatilda 8m
Christmas Island: 11 Attempted Suicides in 48 Hours: A spate of acts of self harm by asylum seekers on Christm… http://bit.ly/1suLhKl
Great spot, Josquin.
I especially liked this bit, on page 9:
[SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION
…
The Generalized Henry George Principle
One of the general principles of taxation is that one should tax factors that are inelastic in supply, since there are no adverse supply side effects. Land does not disappear when it is taxed. Henry George, a great progressive of the late nineteenth century, argued, partly on this basis, for a land tax. It is ironic that rather than following this dictum, the U.S. has been, through its preferential treatment of capital gains, doing just the opposite. (NB: And Australia, through its negative gearing provisions and preferential capital gain tax treatment is even worse.)
But it is not just land that faces a low elasticity of supply. It is the case for other depletable natural resources. Subsidies might encourage the early discovery of a resource, but they do not increase the supply of the resource; instead, that is largely a matter of nature. That is why it also makes sense to tax natural resource rents, from an efficiency point of view, at as close to 100 percent as possible. (Well-designed auctions enable government to capture most of the rents derived from government owned assets.) ]
You know it makes sense.
guytaur
[The silver lining of DT headline and article is that it will lose sales as anti muslim in Western Sydney their main sales area falling as muslims increase]
You may well be right. But I suspect many Arabs despise Iranians as much as Israelis.
Never under estimate how low a Murdoch newspaper or one of their employees can go….. remember they were happy to delete messages off a murdered girls answering machine just to make room for more ‘news’ for themselves.
The advent off Abbott will encourage them to descend to lows never seen before in Australia. Murdoch scumifies all his employees.
Wait for them to applaud multiple suicides by mothers as sure evidence Abbott’s AS policy is effective and working well.
How long before a Murdoch journalist suggest machine-gunning (or getting Sri Lanka) a AS boat as a once and for all solution to the boats ‘problem’. You think they are not that low?
Nobody ever lost a bet guessing how low Murdoch can descend.
MTBW:
[You will all be pleased to know that Sen George Christensen is travelling overseas with .. wait for it .. Lord Monckton giving talks disclaiming Climate Change.]
I wouldn’t want to be sitting in the seat next to Christensen on the plane… for more than one reason.
I take it from Astrobleme #569 that the Greens Party owns the climate issue and how dare anyone else dabble in THEIR area… ?
zoid
How very sad! The nutters in the Liberal Party wouldn’t give a damn!
[I wouldn’t want to be sitting in the seat next to Christensen on the plane… for more than one reason.]
Cheeks and jowls?
TP
[Wait for them to applaud multiple suicides by mothers as sure evidence Abbott’s AS policy is effective and working well.]
You can bet on it!
[Rudd didn’t negotiate with the Greens and acted all surprised when they voted no (despite them saying they would).]
Greens did Not want to talk….. the big worry was in the issue being put to bed and thus a major platform for their existence extinguished. Thus the Greens stuck to a policy setting of absolute and unattainable purity, guaranteeing a deal couldn’t be done.
Rex
[I take it from Astrobleme #569 that the Greens Party owns the climate issue and how dare anyone else dabble in THEIR area… ?]
No, just that people shouldn’t moan when the Greens don’t support bad policy. Nor should they try to blame the Greens for the failure of the ALP to get their policies up when they won’t negotiate with the Greens.
TP
[Greens did Not want to talk…]
This is not true, in Dec Bob Brown indicated they would negotiate and asked to negotiate.
TP
[the big worry was in the issue being put to bed and thus a major platform for their existence extinguished. Thus the Greens stuck to a policy setting of absolute and unattainable purity, guaranteeing a deal couldn’t be done]
This doesn’t make sense either given that they did negotiate and compromise on the Gillard version.
Audio of Shorten’s interview on 3aw today
TP
That is your claim. Evidence is Rudd negotiated with Turnbull.
You know a fact not an opinion.
H|Given Senate numbers it was a rational tactical move
Oops here
http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/breaking-news-blog/shorten-to-abbott-just-give-us-the-facts/20140709-3bma7.html
The CPRS was a terrible policy that amounted to multi-billion dollar corporate welfare for absolutely nothing in return. The Greens were absolutely in the right to reject what had basically become a means for KRudd to wedge Turnbull on the matter (and we all know how that turned out.) Certain people here really need to get over the fact that bad policy was voted down.
Furthermore the notion that the Greens simply refuse to negotiate in things flies in the face over the establishment of the current ETS between negotiations with the ALP & the Greens, a policy which is yet another proud achievement of the Labor party.
I’m sure some Greens Party members would now be quietly regretting not bedding down an ETS and campaigning later for amendments.
Rex
[I’m sure some Greens Party members would now be quietly regretting not bedding down an ETS and campaigning later for amendments.]
Well, given the Greens ended up with close to what they wanted, I doubt it.
Rex
In What if world that could have happened and as a result Abbott became PM in 2010 with maybe a Senate majority.
Thats the point of what if its all fiction
[ I take it from Astrobleme #569 that the Greens Party owns the climate issue and how dare anyone else dabble in THEIR area… ? ]
Pretty much. And of course the only one who has benefited in the end is Abbott.
As long as Abbott remains in his high chair, Australia will end up having to be dragged kicking and screaming back to responsible action on climate change by the rest of the world.
What an embarrassing spectacle that will be.
Astrobleme
Are you saying the Greens Party never wanted a price on carbon, which is what we’ll shortly have ?
Rex
[Are you saying the Greens Party never wanted a price on carbon, which is what we’ll shortly have ?]
No
KR playing silly buggers followed by Labor’s implosion are not the fault of the Greens. Hindsight is 20/20.
Rudd’s CPRS is one of those petty issues where the Greens and ALP stay at loggerheads. The Greens (on evidence) are willing to leave the issue rest. But it appears to annoy the ALP and some of their supporters, because the topic comes up every month or so.
Now if the CPRS had made things better than the status quo, but was rejected by the Greens, then one could accuse them of the dubious charge of “purity”, as Thomas Paine did above. But all evidence I’ve seen is that the CPRS was the “Direct Action” of the day – corporate welfare for no good reason except for Rudd to play silly political games. The CPRS actually made things worse than the status quo. So the Greens were right to reject it. It’s not “purity”. It’s common sense.
Abbott is trying to bring markets down again, almost ~60 points! atm!
[ KR playing silly buggers followed by Labor’s implosion are not the fault of the Greens. Hindsight is 20/20. ]
Nothing is ever the fault of the Greens … according to the Greens.
Labor own most of the responsibility by the simple fact that they were the government.
Nothing is ever the fault of *political party here* … according to *party hacks*
P1
[Nothing is ever the fault of the Greens … according to the Greens.]
I don’t give a damn about the Greens.
The only people who care to argue whether it’s the fault of the Greens are people who don’t care to have Labor take responsibility for its own actions. Whether that suits the Greens or not is irrelevant.
I don’t know why people would care to give Labor such latitude when Labor failing to own what its actions and their consequences – both good and bad – is part of the reason we’re in this mess.